[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11239-11246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02971]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271, 18-143, 19-126; AU Docket No. 20-34; FCC 
24-77; FR ID 201594]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Leveraging the 
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric for High-Cost Support Mechanism 
Deployment Obligations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or the 
Bureau) seeks comment on using the data included in the Broadband 
Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) to update and verify compliance 
with certain High-Cost program support recipients' deployment 
obligations.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 15, 2024, and reply comments 
are due on or before April 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Instructions for Filing Comments. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated 
on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand 
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788-89 (OS 2020).
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#690f0a0a5c595d290f0a0a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="187e7b7b2d282c587e7b7b367f776e">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact, Heidi Lankau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39715c505d501775585752584c795f5a5a175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efa78a868b86c1a38e81848e9aaf898c8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public 
Notice in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271, 18-143, 19-126 and AU Docket 
No. 20-34;

[[Page 11240]]

DA 24-77, released on January 25, 2024. The full text of this document 
is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-77A1.pdf.
    Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte 
submissions will be available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications 
Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will 
also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically 
in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
    Filing Requirements. Comments and reply comments exceeding 10 pages 
must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments 
raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply 
with Sec.  1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's 
rules. The Bureau directs all interested parties to include the name of 
the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their 
comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a 
table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. The 
Bureau also strongly encourages parties to track the organization set 
forth in this document in order to facilitate its internal review 
process.
    Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this 
document initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

I. Introduction

    1. In this document, the Bureau seeks comment on using the data 
included in the Fabric to update and verify compliance with certain 
High-Cost program support recipients' deployment obligations. 
Generally, the Bureau proposes to leverage the Fabric to provide 
support recipients a reliable data source for determining locations and 
to maximize the number of consumers that are served by recipients of 
various High-Cost support mechanisms.

II. Discussion

    2. The Bureau proposes using the Fabric as the data source to 
revise and verify deployment obligations for a number of the high-cost 
support mechanisms, including Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), 
Alternative-Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) I and II, the Bringing 
Puerto Rico Together Fund (Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund), the Connect 
USVI Fund, and the Alaska Plan to promote universal access to broadband 
across the areas funded by these programs. The Bureau seeks comment on 
the proposal and on specific issues related to location total 
adjustments or verifications for each program.
    3. The Commission proposes to use the Fabric to identify the actual 
number of residential and small business units in each relevant high-
cost support recipient's service area, i.e., the number of high cost-
eligible locations. Because the Broadband Data Act directs the 
Commission to include in the Fabric ``all locations in the United 
States where fixed broadband internet access service can be 
installed,'' and to iteratively update the Fabric, including by 
incorporating the results of challenges submitted by stakeholders, 
improved and more updated data sets, and updates to reflect on-the-
ground changes, the Bureau expects the Fabric is and will continue to 
be the most comprehensive and up-to-date source available to identify 
all the high-cost eligible locations in the eligible census blocks 
within a support recipient's service area. The Fabric identifies BSLs, 
which are locations ``where fixed mass-market broadband internet access 
service has, or could be, installed.'' Moreover, because the Fabric 
must ``serve as the foundation upon which all data relating to the 
availability of fixed broadband internet access service . . . shall be 
reported and overlaid,'' the Fabric will help facilitate the Bureau's 
future coordination with other agencies to avoid duplicative funding.
    4. In identifying the high-cost eligible locations that are 
relevant to a high-cost support recipient's service area, the Bureau 
proposes to exclude group quarters locations, which are currently 
included as BSLs in the Fabric, from revised locations totals to remain 
consistent with its previous guidance to exclude such locations from 
the Bureau's High-Cost support mechanism location counts. The Bureau 
also proposes that if a portion of a parcel is inside an eligible 
census block, but the BSL structure located on the parcel falls outside 
of the census block, the BSL will not be counted towards a support 
recipient's location total, consistent with its other High-Cost 
programs. The Bureau notes that for support programs where the location 
totals were determined by the Connect America Cost Model (CAM) or A-
CAM, these models assigned locations to census blocks using 2010 Census 
data that was updated to 2011 counts using Census Bureau 2011 county 
estimates. Because the Fabric incorporates 2020 Census data, the Bureau 
plans to overlay 2010 census blocks over the Fabric locations to 
determine updated location counts. Are there are any further 
adjustments or implications the Bureau should consider in using this 
approach?
    5. The Bureau seeks comment on its proposal to use the Fabric as 
the source for data on supported locations and on the adjustments it 
proposes here. Should the Bureau use any sources to supplement its use 
of the Fabric? If the Bureau does rely on the Fabric as a source, are 
the adjustments it has identified appropriate? Are there other 
adjustments the Bureau would need to make to ensure it is accurately 
identifying the high cost-eligible locations located in the eligible 
census blocks in each support recipient's service area? Commenters 
suggesting that different sources should be used or that different 
adjustments should be

[[Page 11241]]

made for one support mechanism and not another should explain the 
characteristics of the particular support mechanism that require 
different sources or adjustments.
    6. As directed by the Commission, the Bureau seeks comment on how 
to implement the Commission's framework for adjusting required location 
totals based on an updated location data source for RDOF. Specifically, 
the Bureau seeks comment on the timing for when it should announce new 
location totals, how it should adjust support in certain circumstances 
where there are significantly more or fewer locations in a service area 
than estimated by the CAM, standards the Bureau should use for waivers 
and determining whether requests for service are reasonable, and how it 
should apply the framework to support recipients that have multiple 
performance tiers associated with their winning bids.
    7. Given the Commission's direction that WCB adopt revised location 
totals by the end of the sixth calendar year, the Bureau seeks comment 
on when it should consult the location data source to identify the 
relevant residential and small business units and announce revised 
location totals. If WCB adopts its proposal to use the Fabric as the 
location source for RDOF, the Bureau proposes that it announce revised 
location totals for each support recipient within a reasonable time 
after the Fabric version expected to be released in June 2027 is made 
available to licensees. The Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) typically releases an updated Fabric approximately every 
six months, in around June and December. The Bureau expects that using 
the version of the Fabric that is expected to be released in June 2027 
would provide sufficient time for WCB to recalculate location totals 
prior to December 31, 2027, which is the sixth year service milestone 
for RDOF support recipients authorized in 2021.
    8. The Bureau anticipates that using the version of the Fabric 
expected to be released in June 2027 will balance its objectives of 
ensuring that the revised location totals are based on the most up-to-
date location data and also giving support recipients notice of their 
revised location totals prior to the sixth year service milestone. 
Because support recipients will have the opportunity to access earlier 
versions of the Fabric, they will be able to monitor the addition of 
any locations to the Fabric and plan accordingly so they are prepared 
to serve any new BSLs once revised location totals are announced. The 
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and on whether there are any 
sound reasons for adopting and announcing revised location totals 
earlier or later than proposed. Commenters proposing that WCB use 
different location data sources for RDOF should address timing 
considerations for their proposed sources.
    9. The Bureau also proposes to adopt revised location totals for 
all support recipients at the same time, rather than waiting to the 
following year to adopt revised location totals for support recipients 
authorized in 2022 and 2023. Such an approach may mean that locations 
built after the Bureau announces revised location totals will not be 
included in the new totals and that support recipients authorized in 
2022 and 2023 will have an extra year to meet their eighth year service 
milestone if they have newly identified locations when compared to 
those authorized in 2021. However, the Bureau expects the benefits of 
the administrative efficiency of determining and announcing all revised 
location totals at once will outweigh any potential concerns this 
approach may raise, particularly given that any locations built after 
the revised location totals and prior the end of the eighth year of 
support will be subject to the requirement that the support recipient 
serve the location upon reasonable request. The Bureau seeks comment on 
this rationale and on any other suggestions for how it can reconcile 
the requirement to announce revised locations by the sixth year service 
milestone with the fact that RDOF authorizations span multiple years.
    10. The Bureau seeks comment on how to implement the Commission's 
framework for support recipients that must deploy to additional 
locations once WCB announces revised location totals. Specifically, the 
Bureau seeks comment on implementing the Commission's decision to give 
an opportunity for those support recipients to seek additional support 
relief if their new location count exceeds the CAM locations within 
their service area in each state by more than 35%. For such support 
recipients, the Bureau proposes to increase support on a pro rata basis 
for each location over the 35% threshold based on the average support 
amount per location.
    11. The Bureau also seeks comment on any alternatives. For example, 
the Bureau could require a support recipient to seek a waiver of the 
requirement to serve a certain number of locations, but it expects it 
would be administratively burdensome to have to address such waivers on 
a case-by-case basis. Further, such an approach would potentially leave 
locations stranded without service and ineligible for other funding 
programs. As another alternative, the Bureau could provide additional 
time for locations above the 35% threshold to be served, but this would 
further delay the provision of broadband to these locations.
    12. Additionally, the Bureau seeks comment on whether WCB should 
set any parameters for the flexibility support recipients have to seek 
to have their new location counts adjusted to exclude additional 
locations. Specifically, the Commission explained that support 
recipients could seek to exclude additional locations that it 
determines are ineligible, unreasonable to deploy to, or part of a 
development newly built after year 6 for which the cost and/or time to 
deploy would be unreasonable. Should the Bureau set up a process by 
which support recipients must notify the Bureau that their new location 
total includes locations that they would like to be excluded so that 
those locations can become eligible for other funding programs? Should 
the Bureau require that support recipients notify them in the relevant 
docket by a specific date during the support term? Are there any 
standards or procedures the Bureau could adopt to balance this 
flexibility with the Commission's goal of ``seek[ing] to ensure the 
availability of broadband and voice services to as many rural consumers 
and small businesses . . . by the end of the ten-year term as 
possible''?
    13. For example, the Bureau proposes that if a support recipient 
seeks to have its new location total adjusted to remove locations it 
claims are ineligible, that support recipient must first successfully 
challenge the location as part of the Broadband Data Collection's (BDC) 
Fabric challenge process if the Bureau uses the Fabric to revise 
location totals. This would enable the Bureau to conserve 
administrative resources by leveraging the Commission's existing 
process and would also help to maintain consistency between the Fabric 
and the support recipient's obligations.
    14. The Bureau also seeks comment on what criteria it should 
consider when determining whether a location is unreasonable to serve. 
Given the Commission's goal of maximizing RDOF support to serve as many 
consumers and small businesses as possible, the Bureau expects that it 
would not routinely grant requests to exclude locations from a support 
recipient's new location total.
    15. The Bureau seeks comment on how to implement the Commission's 
framework for support recipients that have fewer actual locations in 
the eligible census blocks in their service area than estimated by the 
CAM.

[[Page 11242]]

    16. Prior to the sixth year service milestone. First, the 
Commission directed support recipients to notify WCB no later than 
March 1st following the fifth year of deployment if there are fewer 
locations than were included in the RDOF auction. The Bureau proposes 
that if such a support recipient claims to have served all existing 
locations in the eligible census blocks prior to WCB announcing revised 
location totals, it would permit the support recipient to rely on the 
latest version of the Fabric available to Fabric licensees to 
demonstrate that there are no other locations left to serve and to 
request a verification that it has served all the locations identified 
in the Fabric. If a verification determines that the support recipient 
has served all existing locations prior to the sixth year service 
milestone, the Bureau proposes permitting the support recipient to 
close out its letter of credit. The Bureau expects changes in the 
Fabric will not be significant enough that it would be necessary for 
support recipients to keep their letters of credit open to secure any 
additional deployment that may be required after WCB revises location 
totals. Moreover, any non-compliance issues can be handled pursuant to 
the Commission's rules. The Bureau seeks comment on these assumptions 
and on whether it would be more advantageous to take another approach 
like requiring support recipients to wait until it announces the 
revised support totals before closing out their letters of credit once 
their deployment has been verified.
    17. Because a support recipient with fewer locations than estimated 
by the CAM must serve all of its initial, model-estimated locations by 
the sixth year service milestone, the Bureau seeks comment on requiring 
a support recipient that has already been verified to have served all 
existing locations to serve any locations that are newly identified 
prior to the sixth year service milestone, up to the CAM-estimated 
location total. If the Bureau were to adopt this approach, should it 
announce after each Fabric release whether there are any new locations 
identified by the Fabric in the eligible census blocks served by a 
support recipient which the Bureau already verified has served all 
previously existing locations? If so, should WCB require that the 
support recipient serve the newly identified locations by the sixth 
year service milestone at the latest or by some other reasonable amount 
of time after WCB announces the newly identified locations? The Bureau 
seeks comment on the administrative challenges of monitoring the Fabric 
to identify new locations on a rolling basis and on the burdens of 
having to serve newly identified locations prior to the sixth year 
service milestone.
    18. As an alternative, should WCB instead wait until it officially 
revises location totals for all support recipients to identify any 
newly added locations for those support recipients that it has already 
verified have served 100% of existing locations? If so, should such 
support recipients have until the eighth year service milestone to 
serve any of the newly identified locations? Are there any other 
alternatives for how the Bureau can ensure that new locations are 
timely served?
    19. The Bureau seeks comment on, for added protection, whether and 
how it should withhold a certain percentage of support for support 
recipients if it permits them to close out their letters of credit 
prior to sixth year service milestone because there are fewer existing 
locations than estimated by the CAM and the Bureau has verified they 
have served all existing locations. For example, should the Bureau 
withhold support for all RDOF support recipients, or because WCB will 
only reduce support once it announces revised location totals if the 
revised location total is less than 65% of the CAM-estimated locations, 
should it only withhold support in circumstances where the number of 
locations the RDOF support recipient has served is less than 65% of the 
CAM-estimated total? Should the Bureau withhold support on a pro rata 
basis based on the gap between the CAM-estimated locations and the 
locations that do exist? As an alternative, should the Bureau withhold 
support on a pro rata basis for only the number of locations that bring 
the location total below the 65% threshold, if applicable? Should the 
support recipient be entitled to have all of its withheld support 
restored and its support payments resumed for any newly added locations 
once it has demonstrated that it is now offering the required service 
to any newly added locations? Or, for administrative efficiency, should 
support be restored and support payments resumed after the six year 
service milestone once it has been verified how many locations the 
support recipient has served? Given the Commission's rules provide 
broad authority to take other non-compliance measures, is it even 
necessary to withhold support to protect the public's funds under these 
circumstances? The Bureau also seeks comment on any alternatives, with 
a particular focus on how to balance administrative efficiency with its 
responsibility to protect the public's funds.
    20. If a support recipient is unable to meet interim service 
milestones because there are significantly fewer existing locations 
than estimated by the CAM, the Commission directed such support 
recipients to seek a waiver of the relevant interim service milestones. 
The Bureau proposes finding good cause exists to waive the relevant 
interim service milestones if the support recipient demonstrates with 
Fabric data that it has identified all existing locations in its 
service area and USAC verifies that the support recipient offers 
service meeting the relevant Commission requirements to all existing 
locations. Generally, the Commission's rules may be waived for good 
cause shown. Waiver of the Commission's rules is appropriate only if 
both: (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general 
rule, and (2) such deviation will serve the public interest.
    21. The Bureau proposes finding that the fact that the Fabric shows 
that there are no more locations to serve in the relevant service area 
would constitute special circumstances to warrant a waiver. Moreover, 
the Bureau would find the waiver would serve the public interest 
because the support recipient could use any resources tied up by 
maintaining a letter of credit towards deploying more voice and 
broadband service, and the Commission would still have the ability to 
take further non-compliance measures if the support recipient does not 
serve any newly added locations as required. The Bureau seeks comment 
on its proposal and on any alternative approaches. For example, WCB 
could handle waivers on a case-by-case basis, but it expects such an 
approach to be unnecessarily onerous for both the petitioner and WCB 
when there is already an objective data source that both can rely on to 
confirm the existence of locations.
    22. Post WCB's announcement of revised location totals. The Bureau 
seeks comment on how to implement the requirement that it reduce 
support for those support recipients for which the revised location 
count is less than 65% of the CAM locations. The Bureau proposes 
interpreting the Commission's direction that support be reduced on a 
pro rata basis by the number of reduced locations to mean that WCB 
would apply the pro rata support reduction to the number of locations 
that bring the location total below the 65% threshold. This would avoid 
the inequity of support recipients being subject to no support 
reduction if their revised location total is 65% of the CAM-

[[Page 11243]]

estimated location total, but being subject to a pro rata support 
reduction for all of the locations that make up the gap between the CAM 
estimated location total and the revised location total if their 
revised location total is 64% or less of the CAM estimated location 
total.
    23. A number of support recipients were authorized to receive 
support for multiple performance tiers in a state. The Bureau proposes 
that when revising the location totals for such support recipients, it 
proportionally adjust their location totals for each performance tier 
so that the Bureau maintains the same ratio of locations across all 
performance tiers for the new location total as what was authorized 
under the initial deployment obligation. This approach is consistent 
with the Commission's direction that compliance with service milestones 
be determined at the state level, so that a recipient will be in 
compliance with service milestones if it offers service meeting the 
relevant performance requirements to the required percentage of 
locations across all of the relevant eligible census blocks in the 
state. As an alternative, should the Bureau just require that the 
support recipient serve more locations at the higher speed tier than 
the lower speed tier without requiring the support recipient to serve a 
set percentage of locations at each speed tier? The Bureau seeks 
comment on these options and on whether any other approaches would 
better align with such support recipients' deployment plans. For 
example, WCB could assign any new locations the performance tier 
associated with the census block where the location is located. This 
approach could better reflect RDOF support recipients' initial plans 
given a winning bidder had to assign a performance tier to each census 
block group when bidding, but the approach would not account for the 
flexibility the Commission afforded RDOF support recipients when 
deciding to measure compliance on a state-level basis.
    24. RDOF support recipients must offer the required service upon 
reasonable request to any locations built after WCB announces revised 
location totals and prior to the end of the eighth year of support, 
excluding any locations that do not request service or that have 
exclusive arrangements with other providers. The Bureau proposes to 
rely on Fabric data to identify any new locations as of the end of the 
eighth year of support and confirm compliance with this requirement. 
The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and on whether any other data 
sources should be consulted.
    25. The Bureau also seeks comment on criteria for determining 
whether a request is reasonable. What kinds of parameters would 
appropriately balance the burden on RDOF support recipients of serving 
newly built locations with the Commission's goal of maximizing RDOF 
support to serve as many consumers and small businesses as possible?
    26. The Bureau proposes to leverage Fabric data to simplify the 
location adjustment process for the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund 
and the Connect USVI Fund. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to require 
support recipients to submit a document in the relevant docket that 
identifies when there is a discrepancy between estimated locations and 
actual locations as shown by the Fabric. Rather than duplicate the map 
data by requiring support recipients to submit individual geocodes for 
each location shown by the Fabric, the Bureau proposes it is sufficient 
for support recipients to incorporate the data from the Fabric in their 
filings by reference and certify that the Fabric accurately depicts the 
number of actual locations in their service area based on their 
independent review of the relevant area. To the extent a carrier claims 
that the Fabric does not accurately depict the number of locations, the 
service recipient must submit challenges as part of the BDC location 
challenge process to either add or remove locations from the Fabric. 
The Bureau seeks comment on whether this proposal meets the 
Commission's requirement that support recipients submit evidence of 
existing locations and meets the Commission's objective of adequately 
verifying the number of locations that exist in the Territories post-
hurricane.
    27. Are there any alternatives that better achieve this objective? 
For example, since the process is mandatory for all support recipients, 
should WCB instead conduct an internal review of the Fabric data to 
identify where there might be discrepancies rather than having the 
support recipients conduct an independent review and file a 
notification with the Commission? How would this approach be consistent 
with the Commission's requirement that the support recipient submit 
data as part of this process?
    28. The Bureau proposes that rather than provide a separate 
opportunity for stakeholders to comment on support recipients' filings, 
it will rely on the BDC's location challenge process for administrative 
efficiency. For example, once support recipients have notified the 
Bureau that there is a location discrepancy based on Fabric data or WCB 
alternatively conducts an internal review, it could wait a reasonable 
amount of time for stakeholders to file challenges to the Fabric to 
seek to have locations removed or added. The Commission seeks comment 
on this approach and suggestions for how much time it should provide to 
stakeholders to file challenges and for challenges to be resolved, 
understanding that the Fabric is only updated twice each year. If the 
Bureau adopts this approach, what would be a reasonable amount of time 
to wait for challenges? Should the Bureau require stakeholders to 
notify WCB if they are going to file challenges? Is it necessary to 
wait for challenges from stakeholders if they have already had ample 
opportunity to challenge the Fabric data prior to this process? That 
is, rather than set aside a certain amount of time for challenges, 
should the Bureau just rely on any challenges that have already been 
incorporated into the data at the time WCB conducts its review of the 
data?
    29. Once any challenges to the Fabric from stakeholders have been 
adjudicated, the Bureau proposes finding that the support recipient has 
met its burden of proof to receive a downward adjustment in its 
location total and a corresponding pro rata support reduction for the 
number of locations reflected in the Fabric data. Are there any 
alternative approaches that would better further the Commission's 
objective of providing stakeholders with an opportunity to review and 
comment on the existence of locations without duplicating existing 
Commission processes?
    30. When should WCB conduct the location readjustment process? The 
Commission anticipated that the process would occur within one year of 
the announcement of winning bidders, but later explained the process 
had been delayed. How much time do service providers need to adjust to 
any changes to their support and location totals so that they can meet 
the 100% service milestone by December 31, 2027?
    31. The Bureau also seeks comment on leveraging Fabric data if a 
support recipient requests a reassessment of its obligations no later 
than the beginning of the fifth year of support, i.e., 2026. Should the 
Bureau adopt the same or similar process for the reassessment that it 
adopts for the location adjustment process? What other information 
might be instructive for WCB to collect from support recipients to 
reassess their obligations? Given that the adjustment process has been 
delayed, should the Bureau just combine this assessment with the 
location adjustment process for administrative efficiency? Are there 
any benefits or drawbacks for service

[[Page 11244]]

providers or the public in giving support recipients an opportunity to 
have their obligations reassessed independently of the location 
adjustment process?
    32. The Bureau also seeks comment on how to adjust support if the 
number of locations in a municipio or island is higher than what was 
initially determined. Should WCB increase support on a pro rata basis 
for any additional locations if the actual number of locations is 
higher? Are there any other approaches the Bureau should use for 
adjusting support? The Commission has reiterated that Bringing Puerto 
Rico Together Fund and the Connect USVI Fund support recipients must 
serve all locations in their supported areas.
    33. The Bureau proposes to permit A-CAM I & A-CAM II recipients to 
seek a downward adjustment in their location totals by using the Fabric 
to demonstrate the actual number of locations in their service areas. 
Should the Bureau adopt the same process it proposes in this document 
for support recipients of the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund and 
the Connect USVI Fund--i.e., requiring support recipients to request a 
downward adjustment in the docket and incorporating Fabric data by 
reference? If so, should the Bureau also provide an opportunity for 
stakeholders to file challenges to the Fabric through the National 
Broadband Map or in the BDC system in response to the notification or 
should the Bureau rely on prior challenges that are already 
incorporated into the data at the time of WCB's review? Should WCB 
apply a preponderance of the evidence standard consistent with the 
standard adopted for the Connect America Fund Phase II auction Eligible 
Location Adjustment Process, The Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund, 
and the Connect USVI Fund? If so, should WCB find that the standard has 
been met if it verifies that the Fabric data is consistent with the 
support recipient's requested adjustment? The Bureau seeks comment on 
these issues and on any alternatives.
    34. Although A-CAM recipients have a variety of broadband speed 
obligations within their service areas, they are able to meet their 
obligations by deploying to any location within the eligible area. 
Accordingly, if the Bureau grants a downward adjustment in the location 
total, it proposes reducing the location total on a pro rata basis so 
that it would reduce the number of locations proportionally across all 
of the speed tiers. Similarly, the Bureau also proposes to reduce 
support on a pro rata basis. The Bureau seeks comment on these 
proposals and whether WCB should use any alternative approaches for 
reducing location totals and support amounts.
    35. The Bureau also seeks comment on the timing for when WCB should 
give A-CAM recipients an opportunity to seek a downward adjustment. For 
administrative efficiency, should the Bureau offer a one-time 
opportunity for A-CAM recipients to seek a downward adjustment? If so, 
when would it be an appropriate time to offer this opportunity so as to 
maximize the number of locations that are identified, but also give 
support recipients enough time to adjust their plans prior to the end 
of the support term? For example, the Bureau could require that A-CAM 
providers with support terms that end in 2028 to submit their request 
for a downward adjustment based on the latest release of Fabric data 
prior to end of the sixth year support, consistent with the 
Commission's requirement that WCB make location adjustments for RDOF 
recipients, which also have a 10-year support term, prior to the sixth 
year of support.
    36. It is the Bureau's expectation that Alaska Plan participants 
will offer voice and broadband service to 100% of the locations in 
remote communities, including those locations not connected to the road 
system, at performance levels consistent with the type of middle mile 
commercially available in the community. The rationale is that while 
the communities are remote and isolated, the locations within the 
communities are in relatively close proximity. To avoid stranding 
locations in the Alask Plan participants' service areas without access 
to broadband service, the Bureau proposes to use Fabric data to 
identify all locations within each Alaska Plan participant's service 
area and adjust the Alaska Plan recipient's required location total to 
account for any locations not already included in the location total 
pursuant to WCB's delegated authority to approve changes to deployment 
obligations. The Bureau seeks comment on whether Fabric data is the 
best source for identifying such locations, and whether other sources 
should be used including submissions from the carrier.
    37. Specifically, the Bureau could conclude that a comprehensive 
source like the Fabric had not been released when deployment 
obligations were reassessed in 2021 and that it would serve the public 
interest to further revise deployment obligations to ensure they 
accurately reflect the facts on the ground. If the Bureau were to take 
this step, when would be an appropriate time to revise deployment 
obligations so that Alaska Plan participants are able to complete 
deployment to all relevant locations by the end of the support term, 
i.e., December 31, 2026? Should stakeholders have a defined period of 
time to make any final challenges to the Fabric through the National 
Broadband Map or in the BDC system so that the revised obligations 
incorporate any successful challenges? What other steps could WCB take 
to make certain that all locations in Alaska Plan recipients' service 
areas have access to voice and broadband service through the Alaska 
Plan?

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

    38. This document contains proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and 
OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in 
this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    39. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Bureau 
has prepared this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(Supplemental IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this document. The 
supplemental IRFA supplements the Commission's Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC 
Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, April 2014 
Connect America FNPRM, 79 FR 39196, July 9, 2014, 2018 Rate-of-Return 
Reform NPRM, 83 FR 17968, April 25, 2018, and Rural Digital Opportunity 
Fund NPRM (NPRMs and FNPRMs), 84 FR 43543, August 21, 2019, and Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC 
Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, 2016 Rate-of-
Return Reform Order, 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 2018 Rate-of-Return 
Reform Order, 83 FR 18951, May 1, 2018, Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, 
October 7, 2016, and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 85 FR 13773, 
March 10, 2020. Written public comments are requested on this

[[Page 11245]]

Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the same deadline for comments 
specified in this document. The Commission will send a copy of the 
document, including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
document and Supplemental IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.
    40. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This document 
proposes to leverage the Fabric, the ``common dataset of all locations 
in the United States where fixed broadband internet access service can 
be installed, as determined by the Commission,'' to provide recipients 
with a reliable data source for determining locations and to maximize 
the number of consumers that are served by recipients of various High-
Cost support mechanisms. This includes using the Fabric to identify the 
actual number of residential and small businesses in each relevant 
high-cost support recipient's service area. The Commission delegated to 
WCB the authority to revise deployment obligations, and adjust funded 
locations and funding levels for support recipients' service areas. For 
RDOF, this document seeks to determine how to implement the 
Commission's framework for adjusting required location totals based on 
an updated location source. For the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund 
and the Connect USVI Fund, this document proposes and seeks comment on 
procedures for leveraging Fabric data to simplify the location 
adjustment process for these programs. For A-CAM I & II, this document 
considers permitting recipients to seek a downward adjustment in their 
location totals by using the Fabric to demonstrate the actual number of 
locations in their service areas. For the Alaska Plan, this document 
seeks to determine whether and how to adjust participants' required 
location totals to include all locations within each Alaska Plan 
participants' service area as identified by the Fabric.
    41. Legal Basis. The statutory basis for the Bureau's proposed 
action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 5(c), 214, 254, 303(r), 
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 154(i), 
155(c), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403.
    42. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to 
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and 
policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small 
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' 
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small 
business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    43. As noted in this document, Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were 
incorporated in the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, April 2014 Connect 
America FNPRM, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform NPRM, Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund NPRM, USF/ICC Transformation Order, 2016 Rate-of-
Return Reform Order, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform Order, Alaska Plan 
Order, and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order. In those analyses, the 
Commission described in detail the small entities that might be 
significantly affected. Accordingly, in the document, for the 
Supplemental IRFA, the Bureau hereby adopts by reference the 
descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from these 
previous Regulatory Flexibility Analyses.
    44. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. For the relevant High-Cost 
programs, the Public Notice proposes and seeks comment on streamlined 
procedures that will leverage existing processes for maintaining the 
accuracy of the Fabric to minimize the burdens on support recipients, 
including small businesses, in demonstrating how many actual locations 
are within their service areas. These proposals may require 
modifications to the current compliance obligations for small and other 
providers based upon the proposed methodologies for adjusting support 
for RDOF, A-CAM, Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund, and Connect USVI 
Fund providers based on the number of locations in their service areas 
that may impact their ability to meet their service obligations. 
Additionally, the compliance obligations for small and other providers 
may be impacted by proposals on certain parameters for identifying the 
locations that high-cost recipients are required to serve--for 
generally identifying which Fabric locations are relevant to the high-
cost support obligations, and more specifically for identifying which 
locations must be served after the Bureau conducts its recount for 
RDOF--which may result in an increase or decrease in the number of 
locations certain support recipients, including small businesses, are 
required to serve. The Commission anticipates the proposals discussed 
in the Public Notice will have minimal cost implications because they 
impact recipients who are currently receiving support from the relevant 
programs and much of the required information is already collected to 
ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of support.
    45. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.''
    46. Among the alternatives considered that may impact small 
entities is whether the Bureau should require RDOF support recipients 
to seek a waiver of, or require additional time to meet, the 
requirement to serve more locations when their new location count 
exceeds the CAM locations within their service areas in each state by 
more than 35%, though addressing such waivers on a case-by-case basis 
may prove to be administratively burdensome and potentially leave 
locations stranded without service and ineligible for other funding 
programs. The Bureau also considers whether it should wait until the 
Bureau officially revises location totals for all support recipients to 
identify any newly added locations for those RDOF support recipients 
that WCB has already verified serve 100% of existing locations, and if 
so, whether these recipients should have until the eighth year service 
milestone to serve any of the newly identified locations. Additionally, 
in regards to multiple performance tier requirements, the Bureau 
considers whether after the recount it should require that the RDOF 
support recipients serve more locations at the higher speed tier than 
the lower speed tier without requiring that the support recipient serve 
a set percentage of locations at each speed tier, or instead whether 
the Bureau should

[[Page 11246]]

assign locations the performance tier associated with the census block 
where the location is located. When a carrier receiving Bringing Puerto 
Rico Together Fund or Connect USVI Fund support claims that Fabric does 
not accurately depict the number of locations, the Bureau considers 
whether WCB should conduct an internal review of the Fabric data to 
identify where there might be discrepancies instead of having the 
support recipients conduct an independent review and file a 
notification with the Commission. Before reaching any final conclusions 
and taking any final actions however, the Bureau expects to review the 
comments filed in response to this document and more fully consider the 
economic impact and alternatives for small entities.
    47. As noted in this document, the Bureau seeks comment on how the 
proposals in the document could affect the IRFAs and FRFAs. Such 
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for 
responses to this document and have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFAs and FRFAs.
    48. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent 
with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 
118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-02971 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>